Futher roll-backs on the Bushevik Stupidity Front

Forums: Politics, Foreign Policy, North Korea
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Quote:

Remember how the whole premise of Bush administration North Korea policy was that we shouldn't be offering 'pay-offs' to the North Koreans in exchange for them giving up their nuclear program?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/world/asia/06korea.html

Quote:
The United States has offered a detailed package of economic and energy assistance in exchange for North Korea's giving up nuclear weapons and technology, American officials said Tuesday.

So after six long years of incompetence, arrogance, dithering and disaster, in which the president allowed the NKs to waltz into the nuclear club unimpeded, they're now back to the same policy they insisted on ditching in the first place. Only now with a hand infinitely weaker than it was in 2000 since back then the NKs didn't have the bomb.

One might consider this two ways, either the advocates of engagement and negotiation were right all along and the Bushviks finally admitted reality that their hairy-chested attempts of isolation were cluelessly ineffective, or it was all a cynical ploy to increase the chances for funding future Star Wars anti missile defense systems and even more economic pork for defense contractors while allowing North Korea to go nuclear.

The former consideration would mean that the Bushevik Way actually damaged the security of the nation and yet no one will be held responsible for it, or the second consideration where US security was traded for future commercial profit.

Nicely done, perhaps the symbol of the Bush Administration should be an image of a sleeping sentry or maybe a pickpocket.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,495 • Replies: 121

No top replies

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/948/albrightjongclintonhq1.jpg

0 Replies

Oh look... A picture of Kim Jung Il before Bush let him test a nuclear weapon.

I much prefer Kim raising a champagne glass to the present situation, don't you Tico?

0 Replies

In a long line of retarded posts stretching back literally thousands by you that is by far the most retarded. If that is the only bullet in your chamber, throw down your weapon and start using rocks.

Madeleine Albright was not the Sec of State when North Korea went nuclear or tested ICMBs that could strike the US, Condi Rice was. While Albright was in office neither happened, nor would they have been if Bill Clinton's policies had not been thrown in the trash by the idiots you worship.

0 Replies

Clinton was more responsible for North Korea developing nuclear weapons, and only a dumbass would argue otherwise. But pissing about this is akin to bitching about the cat getting let out of the bag. On to a more important question in this day and age:

What do you think the US ought to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Clinton was more responsible for North Korea developing nuclear weapons, and only a dumbass would argue otherwise. But pissing about this is akin to bitching about the cat getting let out of the bag. On to a more important question in this day and age:

What do you think the US ought to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions?

Reliably you have a big mouth and your talk is cheaper than dog $hit, so back it up or go back to over-billing your clients and leave the discussion to rational folk.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Clinton was more responsible for North Korea developing nuclear weapons, and only a dumbass would argue otherwise. But pissing about this is akin to bitching about the cat getting let out of the bag. On to a more important question in this day and age:

What do you think the US ought to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions?

Reliably you have a big mouth and your talk is cheaper than dog $hit, so back it up or go back to over-billing your clients and leave the discussion to rational folk.

Clinton had an opportunity to take out the DPRK nuclear program with a surgical strike, but he chose instead to negotiate an exchange of resources in return for DPRK's promise to end its nuclear weapons program. That, as we all now know with the benefit of hindsight, was the wrong decision. LINK

Just as Clinton inherited the DPRK nuclear problem, Bush inherited Clinton's appeasement mistake with North Korea and was forced to deal with that framework.

-----

Now, why don't you answer my question, tough guy?

Tico wrote:

What do you think the US ought to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions?

0 Replies

Tico, are you saying that Bush deserves none of the blame for this?

0 Replies

I wasn't aware that this thread was about Iran or its nuclear ambitions.

0 Replies

I suspect Kuvasz doesn't answer the question because it is not germane to the topic. Only rightwingnuts are getting their panties in a twist about Iran, the rest of the world is attempting to engage the Persians, and find a resolution to a situation which on one can control right now--and, of course, with no help and a good deal of hindrance from the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

I wasn't aware that this thread was about Iran or its nuclear ambitions.

It isn't, nor is it about Ticomaya's ego.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I suspect Kuvasz doesn't answer the question because it is not germane to the topic. Only rightwingnuts are getting their panties in a twist about Iran, the rest of the world is attempting to engage the Persians, and find a resolution to a situation which on one can control right now--and, of course, with no help and a good deal of hindrance from the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad.

Like they world did with lil'kim I suppose.

0 Replies

"They world?"

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I suspect Kuvasz doesn't answer the question because it is not germane to the topic. Only rightwingnuts are getting their panties in a twist about Iran, the rest of the world is attempting to engage the Persians, and find a resolution to a situation which on one can control right now--and, of course, with no help and a good deal of hindrance from the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad.

Well, it's certainly evident that kuvasz has his panties in a twist about North Korea having nuclear weapons -- as well he should, BTW -- and he's ready to point the blame at Bush, but not at Clinton, where the real blame lies.

I find it very interesting that leftist moonbats are on the one hand crowing about blaming Bush for NK, while appearing to be either unconcerned about the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons or unwilling to support a military option, opting instead -- at least in the case of Setanta -- to appease Iran to the degree of Clinton's folly with NK.

So I find my question quite germane to the more relevant question of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Clinton had a window of opportunity to use a military option against NK's nuclear weapons program, and chose instead to negotiate with NK, which was a mistake. (Now, of course this is something we learned after the fact, and I'm not taking the position that Clinton was an idiot to take the course of action he did at the time, but we were on notice, at the time, that NK might not be a country that could be trusted. And because Clinton did not insist on a good verification measure, we ended up placing a good deal amount of trust on NK to comply with its promises ... which was a mistake.) Bush should not now take military action against NK, but should take military action against Iran while there is time to do so before Iran has entered the nuclear community. Repeating Clinton's mistake with regard to NK with Iran would be foolish. And anyone willing to believe that Iran is capable of being trusted is the picture of naivete.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Tico, are you saying that Bush deserves none of the blame for this?

North Korea is to blame, and "we" (the United States) are to blame for not taking action against NK when such action could be taken. NK had nuclear weapons ambitions prior to Clinton, and pursued those ambitions during his administration. Bush did not cause NK to suddenly decide it wanted to break its agreement and obtain nukes.

0 Replies

Quote:

I find it very interesting that leftist moonbats are on the one hand crowing about blaming Bush for NK, while appearing to be either unconcerned about the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons or unwilling to support a military option, opting instead -- at least in the case of Setanta -- to appease Iran to the degree of Clinton's folly with NK.

I'm not overly concerned with either of them.

The cat's out of the bag w/regard to WMD, folks. It is too easy to produce chemical and biological weapons, and even Nuclear weapons are produceable by pretty much anyone out there who has the money and time to do it.

I have taken it as a given for my entire life that we will be unable to stop nuclear proliferation. There certainly hasn't been any evidence taht we are able to stop it. There is no reason to believe that scientists in other countries are not just as good at following a recipie as ours are.

Therefore the proper response is to learn to deal with the problem, rather than to try and stamp out any country that has nukes which we don't like. That way lies never-ending war.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I find it very interesting that leftist moonbats are on the one hand crowing about blaming Bush for NK, while appearing to be either unconcerned about the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons or unwilling to support a military option, opting instead -- at least in the case of Setanta -- to appease Iran to the degree of Clinton's folly with NK.

I'm not overly concerned with either of them.

The cat's out of the bag w/regard to WMD, folks. It is too easy to produce chemical and biological weapons, and even Nuclear weapons are produceable by pretty much anyone out there who has the money and time to do it.

I have taken it as a given for my entire life that we will be unable to stop nuclear proliferation. There certainly hasn't been any evidence taht we are able to stop it. There is no reason to believe that scientists in other countries are not just as good at following a recipie as ours are.

Therefore the proper response is to learn to deal with the problem, rather than to try and stamp out any country that has nukes which we don't like. That way lies never-ending war.

Cycloptichorn

You have been fairly consistent in your stated position that you are unconcerned with the prospect of terrorism. I suspect that attitude MIGHT change in the event of a terrorist nuclear event in San Francisco bay. A prevailing attitude with several leftist posters at this site (Setanta, DebraLaw, & Cyclops, to name a few I've engaged with) seems to be to surrender to the prospect that if Iran wants nuclear weapons, they are entitled to nuclear weapons -- after all, the US has them, and we can't stop them if they are determined to get them.

And while I find that attitude repugnant, it is at least not hypocritical. Which is why I'm interested to find out if kuvasz is hypocritical on this subject or not. After all, if he doesn't like the approach taken with regard to NK, he must advocate a substantially different approach with regard to Iran ... and I'd be interested in knowing what that approach would be.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Tico, are you saying that Bush deserves none of the blame for this?

North Korea is to blame, and "we" (the United States) are to blame for not taking action against NK when such action could be taken. NK had nuclear weapons ambitions prior to Clinton, and pursued those ambitions during his administration. Bush did not cause NK to suddenly decide it wanted to break its agreement and obtain nukes.

As long as you aren't absolving Bush from all responsibility, I pretty much agree with that.

0 Replies

Ya gotta love the free entertainment at this site.

Just call me Neville Chamberlain.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ya gotta love the free entertainment at this site.

Just call me Neville Chamberlain.

One would think that with all the history you've read, you might learn a thing or two from it.

0 Replies

Futher roll-backs on the Bushevik Stupidity Front

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know